Source: Bergen Record Contact: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 A WIN FOR DUE PROCESS THERE'S something unfair when the state confiscates a person's property without a trial. In big cases involving money laundering or organized crime, the tactic may be justified on grounds that the money or property will disappear if authorities don't seize it. Nevertheless, the common police tactic contradicts at least the spirit of due process and presumption of innocence. Even more questionable was New Jersey's practice of barring property owners from appealing such seizures to juries. The state Supreme Court's decision that people can take these cases to a jury is an important victory for individual rights. Prior to last week's ruling, people could appeal property seizures in civil court -- but only to a judge. The case was brought by Lois McDermott, a 65-year-old widow whose son was using her car three years ago when he was charged with selling heroin to a Monmouth County police officer. Ms. McDermott says her son, who pleaded guilty, used the car without permission. In their decision, the justices referred to colonial days when ships off New Jersey's coast could not be seized without a jury trial. "Automobile owners are entitled to the same protection today," Justice Stewart Pollock wrote. "The forfeiture of automobiles today, like that of sailing ships in earlier times, should be subject to the general rule requiring trial by jury." State Attorney General Peter Verniero says the state Supreme Court's ruling will logjam courts, divert law enforcement officials from investigations, and hamper the war against drugs by removing the threat of swift forfeiture. That may be true. But convenience and efficient law enforcement cannot be the driving factors in law. If they were, people merely suspected of crimes could be sentenced without trials. Justice Pollock summed it up best when writing: "Mere inconvenience cannot justify the denial of a constitutional right." Copyright 1998 Bergen Record Corp. - --- Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)